audit report the u.s. department of energy's funds

THEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S

FUNDS DISTRIBUTION AND CONTROLSYSTEM AT THE FEDERAL ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY CENTER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES

AUDITREPORT

DOE/IG-0443

APRIL 1999

April 5, 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Gregory H. Friedman (Signed)Inspector General

SUBJECT: INFORMATION : Report on "Audit of the U.S. Department of Energy’s FundsDistribution and Control System at the Federal Energy Technology Center"

BACKGROUND

In Fiscal Year 1998, the Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) was responsible for managing about $723million in budgetary resources. The objective of this audit was to determine if FETC had a funds distributionand control system to ensure appropriated funds were managed in accordance with congressional intent andapplicable policies and procedures.

RESULTS OF AUDIT

Improvements are needed in FETC's administration of budgetary and accounting transactions. FETC did nothave a comprehensive system to allocate indirect costs to funding programs and work-for-others projects. Inaddition, FETC did not completely adhere to Headquarters Clean Coal budget direction. The Office ofInspector General (OIG) reached its conclusions despite a scope impairment. Written documentation was notalways available, and the audit team did not have ready access to key personnel who could explain certaintransactions and management practices and procedures.

In order to strengthen the FETC financial management system, the OIG recommended (1) the development ofpolicies, procedures, and practices to accurately collect and allocate indirect costs and (2) improvements ininternal control procedures. The OIG also recommended that the Chief Financial Officer conduct a detailed"for cause" review of the financial management practices at FETC and work with the Office of FieldManagement to develop a schedule for reviewing the financial management systems of all Departmentalelements.

MANAGEMENT REACTION

The Chief Financial Officer and FETC's management concurred with the audit recommendations. As a result ofthe draft report, the Chief Financial Officer initiated a one week review of FETC's accounting and budgetingpractices and agreed to conduct a more indepth review once FETC also had an appropriate amount of time toimplement the report's recommendations. FETC management has developed an action plan to correct OIGnoted deficiencies and has informed its employees that they need to cooperate with the OIG.

Attachment

cc: Deputy Secretary Under Secretary

Overview

Introduction And Objective.................................................................1

Conclusions And Observations............................................................1

FETC Funds Distribution And Control System

Details Of Finding ..............................................................................3

Recommendations And Comments ......................................................9

Appendices

1. Scope And Methodology.............................................................11

2. CFO and FETC Memorandums Regarding Draft Report..............14

3. FETC Director's Memorandum Regarding Cooperation WithExternal Auditors ........................................................................17

TABLE OFCONTENTS

The U.S. Department Of Energy's Funds Distribution And ControlSystem At The Federal Energy Technology Center

In December 1996, two of the U.S. Department of Energy's(Department) research, development, and demonstration centers, theMorgantown Energy Technology Center in Morgantown, West Virginia,and the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, were consolidated into the Federal Energy TechnologyCenter (FETC). The merger was accomplished to make Departmentaloperations work better and cost less. The mission of the newly createdFETC organization was to solve national energy and environmentalproblems. In Fiscal Year 1998, FETC received about $722.9 million inbudgetary funds from 14 different appropriation accounts.

FETC manages the Department's Fossil Energy research anddevelopment programs for coal and natural gas-based energy supply, aswell as programs to produce technologies for environmental clean-up. Italso conducts an in-house research program to support external projects.As of September 1998, FETC employed approximately 550 Federal andabout 600 support contractor employees.

FETC reports to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.Management onsite consists of the Executive Board, which includes theFETC Director, Deputy Director, and seven Associate Directors. TheAssociate Directors manage FETC's seven operating divisions: Fuels &Specialty Markets, Power Systems, Environmental Management, ProjectManagement, Science and Technology, Program Support and SiteOperations, and Systems and Environmental Analysis. Usingappropriations from Fossil Energy, Clean Coal, EnvironmentalManagement, and work-for-others, these divisions are responsible forachieving the FETC mission.

The objective of this audit was to determine if FETC had a fundsdistribution and control system to ensure appropriated funds weremanaged in accordance with congressional intent and applicable policiesand procedures.

Improvements were needed in FETC's funds distribution and controlsystem. That system allowed (1) inappropriate cost allocations and (2)budgetary inconsistencies, which could result in the misuse ofappropriated funds. For example, FETC did not allocate indirect coststo work-for-others or charge all appropriation accounts equitably. Withregard to budgetary inconsistencies, funding authority was created overand above what was allocated to FETC for program direction. In

Overview

INTRODUCTION ANDOBJECTIVE

CONCLUSIONS ANDOBSERVATIONS

Introduction and Objective/Conclusions and Observations

addition, FETC management did not follow budget guidancepromulgated by both Headquarters and FETC Clean Coal TechnologyDemonstration Program (Clean Coal) officials.

The cost allocation and budget problems occurred because FETC didnot have policies and procedures in place to allocate indirect costs.Also, FETC officials did not sufficiently emphasize sound financialmanagement practices and internal controls. As a result, FETC couldnot demonstrate the accuracy of its cost allocation system or thatappropriated funds were being spent in accordance with the controlsestablished by the Department and the intent of the Congress.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reached its conclusions despitea scope limitation. FETC personnel did not always make writtenevidence and documentation available or easily accessible to the auditstaff. Similarly, requests for documentation essential to the audit werenot forthcoming or were unreasonably delayed. In addition, whendocuments were provided, they did not contain the level of detailnecessary to verify the accuracy, reliability, and completeness offinancial transactions. This scope limitation is discussed more fully onPages 11 and 12 of the report.

Management agreed with the audit recommendations and stated thatnumerous corrective actions had already been taken but took issue withcertain facts and provided additional information that was incorporatedinto the report where appropriate. As a result of the draft report, theChief Financial Officer initiated a review and discussions with FETCofficials regarding their management controls and response to thefinding and recommendations. FETC officials reevaluated theirmanagement controls and provided an action plan to the ActingAssistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. The Director also issued amemorandum that stated that all FETC employees were expected tocooperate fully in any external survey, audit, or investigation.

The issues discussed in this report should be considered by theDepartment when preparing the yearend assurance memorandum oninternal controls.

______(Signed) _________Office of Inspector General

Conclusions and Observations

FETC's funds distribution and control system had significant weaknessesin its cost allocation procedures and financial management system.FETC did not allocate indirect costs equitably to all of its fundingprograms or to work-for-others projects. Funding authority also wascreated over and above what was allocated to FETC for programdirection, and FETC management did not follow Headquarters guidancerelating to the Clean Coal program.

Indirect costs were not fully allocated to FETC's benefiting programsand work-for-others projects. The appropriate allocation of the full costof operations is essential if the Department's executives and theCongress are to have reliable and relevant data. The allocation ofindirect costs also ensures consistency between costs reported infinancial reports and costs provided to financial managers. Indirect costsgenerally include all costs incurred for centralized operations office andgeneral operating costs essential to maintaining a functioning operationsoffice or site. These costs should be allocated to all benefitingprograms. The following discussions of (1) benefiting programallocation and (2) work for others illustrate the inappropriate costallocation processes disclosed at FETC.

Benefiting Program Allocation

Contrary to applicable Departmental guidelines, FETC generally did notallocate site support costs to its benefiting programs. This wasconfirmed by a study performed by FETC and testimonial statementsmade by management officials as part of this audit.

In Fiscal Year 1998, FETC did charge site support costs to one of itsfunding programs--Clean Coal. This allocation, however, appeared tobe arbitrary and was not properly supported with adequatedocumentation. Specifically, FETC charged the Clean Coal program$3.8 million. The FETC Chief Financial Officer stated that this wasdone because $3.8 million was the only amount available in the CleanCoal program direction account after deducting for direct salaries andother support costs. Similar charges were not allocated to theEnvironmental Management program.

Inquiries were made regarding the basis for the $3.8 million allocation,but FETC was not able to provide documentary support for thistransaction. An official indicated that it was "understood" that the Clean

FETC Funds Distribution And Control System

Cost AccountingIssues

Details Of Finding

Coal program would be charged a portion of the site's institutional costs.Another official stated that "using Clean Coal money for Fossil Energywas not an issue" because "all of the money was under the sameAssistant Secretary." Federal Accounting Standards require theestablishment of a systematic process for allocating direct and indirectcosts. Taking "what's left" is not an appropriate method for allocatingcosts to the funding program.

We also noticed that FETC's institutional budget for Fiscal Year 1997required the Environmental Management (EM) program to payapproximately $2 million for its share of site support costs. However, inFY 1998, EM was not charged for these costs. Fossil Energy (FE) wasof the opinion that an appropriation committee report permitted FETCto use FE program direction funds to support other DOE activities. Ourreview of the report language indicated that it was not clear, and FE'sinterpretation was not in keeping with traditional cost accountingmethodologies.

Work For Others

FETC, in addition, did not follow Departmental policy with respect toallocating indirect costs to work for other Federal agencies and non-Federal entities. Departmental policy, as stated in DOE Order 481.1,Work For Others, and DOE Order 2110.1A, Pricing of DepartmentalMaterials and Services, requires that pricing be based on full costrecovery. Prices charged to external parties should include all direct andallocable costs of producing the material or providing the service.

FETC's work-for-others projects, at the time of the audit, totaled $272.7million. The largest project, a $49.2 million task assignment for theGeneral Services Administration (GSA), was for the implementation ofinformation technology resources acquisitions. FETC charged GSA 3.5percent for indirect expenses. The funds were collected from GSA, butthese amounts were not applied back to the appropriate fundingprogram. Instead, they were made available to other parts of thetechnology center. Thus, part of GSA's funds was used to support otherprograms unrelated to the GSA effort.

The audit team was informed that the remaining FETC work-for-othersprojects (totaling $223.5 million) were not charged any amount forindirect costs. A detailed review of four work-for-others projectsconfirmed this assertion. Because indirect costs were not applied to

Details Of Finding

these projects, the Department was inappropriately subsidizing theoperations of other Federal agencies and the private sector.

The FETC Financial Information System (FIS) contained various codingerrors and anomalies. DOE Order 534.1, Accounting, and DOE M534.1-1, Accounting Handbook, require that Departmental elementsestablish accounting systems that accurately record and report financialinformation relating to cash, liabilities, reimbursable work, collections,and expenses. Departmental elements must also ensure that theirrecords contain sufficient details to account for all DOE funds, assets,liabilities, and costs.

A July 1998 FIS report showed 28 negative obligations totaling to$4,563,513 and 13 negative payment transactions totaling to$4,215,077. The audit team, in its initial discussions with FETCpersonnel and in its review of the Department's Accounting Handbook,could find no explanation or support for these negative balances. In asubsequent discussion, a FETC budgeting and financial managementofficial indicated that several of the balances were coding errors.However, specific documentation supporting the initial transactions wasnot available for audit examination.

FETC also did not establish proper controls over budgetary authority.Obligational and funding authority was created over and above what wasallocated to FETC for program direction, and FETC did not followHeadquarters budget guidance.

Obligational Authority

FETC's program direction allocation was augmented by the use of asuspense account. DOE Order 135.1, Budget Execution - FundsDistribution and Control, and the related DOE M 135.1-1, BudgetExecution Manual, provide that funds allocated from Headquarters aresubject to an obligation control level. The control level represents theupper limit placed on the amount of obligations or expenditures that maybe incurred for a specific program, function, or element of expense.

In Fiscal Year 1998, Headquarters officials allocated $48.7 million toFETC for program direction. This amount was increased by $4.9million through the use of a suspense account. Use of the suspenseaccount was not readily apparent in the Departmental Integrated

Errors AndAnomalies

BudgetaryInconsistencies

Details Of Finding

Standardized Core Accounting System (DISCAS) and would have goneundetected unless an individual had known of its existence. Statementsmade to the audit team indicated that similar transactions of this typehave been made in previous years. As a result of these transactions,FETC inappropriately augmented its program direction account. Wecould find no rationale to support these actions.

Budget Guidance

FETC, in addition, did not follow budget guidance contained in theClean Coal Program Implementation Plan (PIP). The PIP is the result ofjoint planning conducted by FETC and Headquarters executives, and itidentifies the program financial transactions that require the obligation ofClean Coal appropriated funds. Increases to the PIP requireHeadquarters approval.

The FY 1998 PIP established FETC Clean Coal program salaries andbenefits for 50 Full Time Employees (FTEs) at $4.5 million. Despitethis guidance, the FETC Chief Financial Officer and an Executive Boardmember indicated that the Clean Coal program would be charged anadditional $700,000. In a discussion about the increased amount, anExecutive Board member stated that 50 FTEs had worked on CleanCoal projects at a cost of $5.2 million. He further stated that thedifference between the PIP and FETC salary amounts was due toHeadquarters using the wrong numbers in the PIP.

The audit team examined salary and benefit charges to the Clean Coalprogram. Both a Clean Coal official and the audit analysis indicated thatonly 45 FTEs were actually supporting the Clean Coal program.Documentation supporting the additional $700,000 in payroll chargeswas not available for audit examination. Further, we could find noindication that Headquarters approved this increase.

The cost allocation and budget problems occurred because FETC didnot have policies and procedures in place to allocate indirect or supportcosts. Also, FETC officials did not sufficiently emphasize soundfinancial management practices and internal controls. For example, theinternal control systems did not provide for proper segregation of dutiesand documentation and review of transactions. In addition, personnelwho left the Budget and Financial Management Division had not beenreplaced, and there had not been a recent external review of FETC thatmay have detected some of the weaknesses in the funds distribution andcontrol system.

Establishment Of A SoundFunds Distribution AndControl System

Details Of Finding

Cost Distribution

Following the merger, FETC did not develop written policies andprocedures for allocating costs. Rather than following the normalprocess for allocating indirect costs to funding programs, an individualin the Budget and Financial Management Division used a database toreallocate actual costs based on initial budget estimates rather thanexpenses incurred. The purpose of this process was not documented;however, by adjusting costs to fit to a predetermined formula, FETCwas no longer associating actual costs with work performed.

FETC attempted to rectify the situation in 1997 for work-for-othersprojects. A Direct/Indirect Cost Team was formed. Its objective was todetermine a methodology to develop indirect cost rates for servicesoffered to FETC's outside customers. The team produced a report thatincluded many useful recommendations; however, there was noindication that FETC was using the methodology of the report to assignindirect charges to work-for-others projects.

Internal Control

There were also weaknesses in internal control over financialtransactions. For example, one person at FETC had sole responsibilityfor entering the institutional budget, obligating and costing funds,adjusting cost amounts, and creating yearend adjustments to uncostedbalances on support service contract amounts. The OIG was informedthat this individual has since left the organization and that others arelearning to perform these functions. No individual, however, shouldhave sole responsibility over all these types of transactions.

In another example, FETC's budgeting and financial managementpersonnel were not regularly reviewing transaction and exceptionreports. A DISCAS report provided listings of invalid user entries suchas "over advice at funds control level" or "over obligation at the B&Rsummary." But this report was not used at FETC even though theDepartment's Deputy Controller had emphasized that such error reportsshould be reviewed on a regular basis.

A Fossil Energy management official informed us that, as a result of themerger, FETC had lost many knowledgeable budgeting and financialmanagement personnel. Key employees either retired or weretransferred out of the Budget and Financial Management Division and,at the time of the audit, replacements had not been found.

Details Of Finding

A 1998 FETC summary management review noted the loss of keypersonnel and the fact that there had been no formal reviews of thefinancial system. The review indicated that little progress was made inthe development of financial policies and procedures, and thatreallocation of duties had created turmoil in the Budget and FinancialManagement Division. Also, periodic backlogs in processinginformation occurred, and without additional staffing support, thebacklogs increased risk. Despite this assessment, FETC's yearendmemorandum to the Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy statedthat management controls were working effectively and that the financialmanagement system had been evaluated and conformed to applicablestandards.

Oversight Of FETC Financial Activities

The Headquarters Offices of Chief Financial Officer and Fossil Energywere not aware of the internal control weaknesses at FETC because ofthe positive assertions made by senior officials and the fact that theDepartment's Chief Financial Officer had not reviewed FETC financialmanagement systems since 1991. Both the Pittsburgh and MorgantownEnergy Technology Centers were subject to a 1991 compliance reviewby the Headquarters Chief Financial Officer. Since 1995, the ChiefFinancial Officer has utilized the Department's Business ManagementOversight Process (BMOP) for Headquarters reviews over fieldactivities. The BMOP reviews have focused primarily on largerDepartmental field activities. At the time of the audit, FETC, because ofthe size of its operations, had not been scheduled for a review. Wenoted that there were other similarly sized organizations within theDepartment that had not been subjected to business oversight reviews.

The audit findings led us to conclude that FETC had not developed orimplemented a comprehensive system of financial controls. FETC hadnot developed adequate financial management policies and proceduresor ensured that appropriate documentation was available to support alltransactions. FETC also had not developed a cost distribution systemthat consistently and equitably applied indirect costs to benefitingprograms and work-for-others projects. In addition, despiterequirements for appropriate segregation of duties, several transactionsappeared to have been authorized, processed, recorded, and reviewed byone individual. Taken together, these weaknesses prevented FETC fromassuring its customers and stakeholders that its financial reports, use offunds, and billing of customers were accurate and supportable.

Importance Of An InternalControl System

Details Of Finding

We recommend the Director, Federal Energy Technology Center:

1) Develop, document, and implement policies, procedures, andpractices for collecting and allocating indirect costs to FETCfunding programs and work-for-others projects.

2) Develop and implement a system of internal controls over financialmanagement that includes:a) documentation of control systems and all transactions that are

readily available for examination;b) separation of responsibilities in authorizing, processing,

recording, and reviewing transactions;c) continuous supervision to ensure that the internal control

objectives are achieved; andd) necessary staff resources to accomplish assigned duties.

We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer:

1) Conduct a "for cause" review to ensure that FETC is performing financial management according to established Departmental policies and procedures; and

2) Work with the Office of Field Management to develop a scheduleto review, based on risk, the financial operations of field andHeadquarters' reporting units.

FETC concurred with the recommendations and indicated thatindividuals within its Budget and Financial Management Division areworking to institute improvements and a financial reporting structurerelating to internal controls, recovery of indirect costs, the developmentof written budget and accounting desk procedures, and the evaluation oftraining and workload distribution. FETC will coordinate these policieswith the Headquarters' CFO Office of Policy to ensure full compliancewith Departmental policy. FETC intends to complete its action plan byOctober 1999. In addition, the Director of FETC issued a memorandumfor all FETC employees indicating that they were expected to fullycooperate in any external survey, audit, or investigation. (See Appendix3.)

The Chief Financial Officer agreed with the report's recommendationsand approved and coordinated the FETC action plan and response to the

RECOMMENDATIONS

MANAGEMENTREACTION

Recommendations And Comments

draft report. With regard to the recommendations, the Office of ChiefFinancial Officer plans to perform a follow-up review of FETC financialmanagement activities after management has had an appropriateamount of time to implement the report's recommendations. It alsoplans to pursue with the Office of Field Management the need toperform periodic cyclical reviews of financial management activities atthe Department's other Field sites.

Management comments are responsive to the recommendations.AUDITORCOMMENTS

Recommendations And Comments

The audit was performed from May 11, 1998, to November 10, 1998, atthe Federal Energy Technology Center (FETC) offices in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and Morgantown, West Virginia, and at Fossil Energy,Clean Coal Technology and the Chief Financial Officer's offices inWashington, DC and Germantown, Maryland. The review included anexamination of Fiscal Year 1998 appropriated funds.

In conducting the audit, we considered the audit scope impaired. Theaudit team was not provided with complete documentation for manytransactions and did not have full access to key personnel during thereview. Responses to information requests were delayed, and FETCofficials chose not to provide the Office of Inspector General withrequested information because they "could not devote critical resourcesto researching" information requests. In addition, restrictions wereplaced on audit interviews. For example, documentary supportrequested in July of 1998 was not provided, and in September 1998,FETC officials indicated that the information requested in July wouldnot be available due to yearend closeout activities. Generally, whendocumentation was provided, it did not contain the level of detailnecessary to support the statements made by budget and accountingpersonnel.

FETC procedures also required individuals contacted by the OIG tosubmit a "contact report," to be forwarded and distributed tomanagement in the FETC organization. The "contact report" practicesat the FETC may have inhibited knowledgeable employees fromspeaking freely or providing candid views on the issues under audit. OnMarch 22, 1999, FETC management eliminated the contact reportrequirement.

On several occasions the audit team met with senior FETC officials todiscuss the tentative results of audit. During these discussions, FETCofficials indicated that they were in the process of initiating certaincorrective actions, and at the final meeting, offered to provide acorrective action plan addressing the issues noted in this report. TheOffice of Inspector General, on October 15, 1998, formally providedFETC the opportunity to have any corrective actions referenced in ourreport. However, FETC decided it would be preferable to formulate acorrective action plan following receipt of the draft report.

In response to the draft, FETC in coordination with the Office of ChiefFinancial Officer, provided additional information that was reflected inthe report as appropriate.

Appendix 1

SCOPE

Scope And Methodology

To achieve the audit's objective, Federal financial accounting standardsand related Departmental guidance were reviewed to determine therequirements for funds distribution and control. DOE Orders related tobudget execution and accounting and related manuals were alsoexamined to determine the systems, policies, and requirements for theexecution and control of the Department's budgetary and accountingprocesses. In addition, U.S. General Accounting Office Standards forInternal Controls in the Federal Government were reviewed to establishthe requirements necessary for systems of internal control directed bythe Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. Further, a varietyof internal FETC and Clean Coal program reports were reviewed to gaininsight into the methodology for determining indirect rates for work-for-others projects and the Fiscal Year 1998 budget amounts. Finally, prioraudit reports and responses to findings were assessed to determine theirapplicability to FETC and the operation of the Departmental IntegratedStandardized Core Accounting System (DISCAS).

Discussions were also held with FETC and Headquarters officials.Meetings were conducted with the Fossil Energy and Clean CoalTechnology program budget and financial management officials toobtain information with regards to appropriation language and budgetingprocesses.

The audit examined various budgetary and accounting transactions.FETC allotment postings totaling to $722.9 million were matchedagainst allotments posted on DISCAS for the month ending June 1998.FETC employee Budget and Reporting (B&R) codes for pay periodsending May 9 and May 23, 1998, were compared against Fiscal Year1998 codes assigned at the beginning of the year. Four work-for-othersagreements were also reviewed to determine whether indirect chargeshad been allocated to these projects and FETC accounts.

Except for the scope impairment previously noted, the audit wasconducted in accordance with generally accepted Government auditingstandards for financial related audits which included tests of internalcontrols and compliance with laws and regulations to the extentnecessary to satisfy the objectives of the audit. Internal controls werereviewed with regards to controls over funds distribution and control.Because the review was limited, it would not have disclosed all internalcontrol deficiencies that may have existed. Computer-processed datawas used only as necessary to review internal controls over budgetaryand financial transactions.

METHODOLOGY


An exit conference was held with representatives from the Offices ofChief Financial Officer, Fossil Energy, and the Federal EnergyTechnology Center on March 22, 1999.


Appendix 2

CFO MemorandumRegarding Draft Report

FETC MemorandumRegarding Draft Report

CFO MemorandumRegarding Draft Report

Appendix 3

FETC Director's Memorandum RegardingCooperation With External Auditors

IG Report No. DOE/IG-0443

CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM

The Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its products.We wish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers' requirements, and,therefore, ask that you consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form, you maysuggest improvements to enhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include answers to thefollowing questions if they are applicable to you:

1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or procedures ofthe audit would have been helpful to the reader in understanding this report?

2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been included inthis report to assist management in implementing corrective actions?

3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report's overall messagemore clear to the reader?

4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues discussedin this report which would have been helpful?

Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we have anyquestions about your comments.

Name _____________________________ Date __________________________

Telephone _________________________ Organization ____________________

When you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at(202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:

Office of Inspector General (IG-1)Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

ATTN: Customer Relations

If you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of InspectorGeneral, please contact Wilma Slaughter at (202) 586-1924.

The Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customerfriendly and cost effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available

electronically through the Internet at the following alternative address:

U.S. Department of Energy Management and Administration Home Pagehttp://www.hr.doe.gov/ig

orhttp://www.ma.doe.gov

Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on theCustomer Response Form attached to the report.

This report can be obtained from theU.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical InformationP.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

audit report the u.s. department of energy's funds

Documents